Gujarat High Court
Keval Markandbhai Raval vs State Of Gujarat on 24 February, 2022
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/20019/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20019 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
KEVAL MARKANDBHAI RAVAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. GAUTAM JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MR. VYOM H SHAH(9387)
for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. KURVEN DESAI, AGP, for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 24/02/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Kurven Desai, learned AGP, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing today.
Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 28 20:57:36 IST 2022
C/SCA/20019/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022 2 Heard Mr.Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Vyom
Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Kurven Desai, learned AGP, for the State-respondent.
3 By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order under challenge is dated 29.11.2019 as well as the Appellate Order dated 26.07.2021.
3.1 The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner, while working as Police Inspector, Bhavnagar, was held responsible for negligence on the ground that when the Rapid Response Cell conducted a raid in Bhavnagar on 25.10.2018, wherein the offenders were caught gambling and an item amounting to Rs.34,819/- were recovered.
3.2 A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.05.2019 suggesting that the petitioner had been negligent in performing his duties. The response was made by the petitioner on 23.06.2019 justifying his action on the ground that he was not present at the place and was involved somewhere else in discharge of his duties, and therefore, the show cause notice was misconceived.
3.3 By the impugned order and the Appellate Order, the penalty is inflicted of stoppage of one increament without future effect.
4 Mr.G.M.Joshi, learned Senior Counsel, with Mr.Vyom Shah, Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 28 20:57:36 IST 2022 C/SCA/20019/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022
learned counsel, would submit that if the report of the Superior i.e. Dy.S.P, Bhavnagar, is read who was assigned an inquiry to establish responsibility of the officers of the concerned police station, a specific finding is recorded that the petitioner was busy on 25.10.2018 in investigation of a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and thereafter for preparing a charge sheet in connection with an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was busy with the bandobast for the visit of the Chief Minister at Ghogha. It was also pointed out that during the raid, the petitioner had been successfully taking cases, 16 in number, and therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner.
5 Mr.Kurven Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader, would rely on an affidavit-in-reply filed by one Mr.R.K.Bhagora, Office Superintendent of the Office of the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, and submit that the petitioner was very well on duty and the fact that he had not clue of the gambling activities taking place in the concerned area itself showed that he was negligent in performance of his duties.
5.1 Reliance is placed on an instruction of the G.R dated 05.09.2003, wherein, it is explicitly stated that if an outside agency conducts the raids and is successful in doing so, the officer posted in the concerned area Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 28 20:57:36 IST 2022 C/SCA/20019/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2022 where the raid has been done must take appropriate steps and the officer in-charge of the particular police station will be held responsible for the negligence.
5.2 Perusal of the order impugned herein together with the Appellate Authority's order would indicate that apart from being without any reasons and shifting the onus on the petitioner to prove otherwise, the order suffers from the vice of being without reasons. 5.3 Apparent it is from the report of the Dy.S P that the petitioner was actively engaged in discharge of duties at other places. The communication dated 05.09.2013 cannot be pressed into service as it is vague and cannot be made applicable to any employee who is not present at the place where the alleged offence has been committed. 6 The order, therefore, of penalty dated 29.11.2019 and the Appellate Order dated 26.07.2021 are hereby quashed and set aside. Pay benefits of the petitioner i.e. increament etc., shall stand restored forthwith as if the orders of penalty and appellate order were never passed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) Bimal Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 28 20:57:36 IST 2022